I think you protest too much. I think you admire Baden's definition of Happiness in a sentence. — Amity

Yes, I suspect @S cried tears of recognition upon exposure to my prose as the sentiments resonated with that beautiful inner child his ogre of an ego keeps imprisoned.

Sing, little child, sing! And one day the ogre will sing with you and set you free... :sparkle:

Sing, little child, sing! And one day the ogre will sing with you and set you free... — Baden

...and they all lived happily ever after :smile:

Or not :sad:

Depending on the song they are singing.
If it's Ken Dodd's version of Happiness...

Happiness, happiness, the greatest gift that I possess
I thank the Lord that I've been blessed
With more than my share of happiness

Debatable.

I think you protest too much. — Amity

Moi? Maybe. Or maybe it's just that everyone else doesn't protest enough. :grin:

I think you admire Baden's definition of Happiness in a sentence.
I think you would love the chance to get right in there and rip it up.
But I could be wrong :wink: — Amity

I do love ripping things up. It's what makes me tick. It's part of my daily routine. Wake up, brush teeth, rip things up, breakfast, rip things up, cup of coffee, read the news, rip things up...

So where can we find examples of a quality discussion - in terms of participation levels and how it is led and maintained ? Is the end as important as the beginning...does there need to be a conclusion or summary ?

Given Baden's earlier mention of unenlightenment, I searched through his Discussion history until I hit on one I could relate to:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/605/an-analysis-of-emotion/p1

I like the way it started with reference to a previous discussion, providing context:

It's emotional responses to crime that generate harmful actions that make us all worse off.
— andrewk

Emotional responses are the problem? Um.. no. It takes a hardening of the heart to be able to chop somebody's head off. The vileness actually starts with a lack of natural emotion.— Mongrel


Context.

The word 'Context' in blue * linked to:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/587/are-there-hidden-psychological-causes-of-political-correctness#Item_192

And then the OP continued with unenlightened's take:

The dispute above is speedily resolved with a simple proviso: "It depends what emotion."

Followed by a list...1 to 6.

I really admire the way this was done. And I am sure that there are others who have started and led quality discussions. In their own way but still within the guidelines.

Quite inspirational. Really. The level of knowledge, experience and engagement with firm but light touch.
Not sure about the ending...

-------------

* how is that done ? The easy word link. Cos I usually go all round the houses. Tiresome for all concerned.

So following unenlightened's approach, a thread on Happiness could start with 2 or 3 contrasting views:

Purple Pond:
Happiness is a the mixture of positive emotions that include liveliness, euphoria, and satisfaction, and is mostly ineffable. It's what people experience at marriage and the birth of their first child. A kid feels happy at the water park. An adult is happy at the sight of her paycheck. What makes one person happy can put one person down, and happiness at expense of another is actually rather sad.

You ask what can we do to make people happy? Surely not something extremely contagious?


Baden:
Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action.

S:
That's an easy one. Happiness is the feeling you get when you trample over other people's ideas.

Meh. I think I already know what happiness is, so I don't need other people telling me what they think it is. I don't even need to put it into words, least of all fancy-shmancy words.

----------

Some thing along these lines ?
What do you think ?

Edit to add unenlightened's contribution :

It's a cigar, I think, or a Shakespeare play.

:flower: return to sender — Amity

I give up on women. :cry:

I give up on women. :cry: — Purple Pond

Check your underlying assumptions and please don't generalise in my company. It brings me out in a rash; just like cut flowers :mask:

We can start the OP with writing an introduction on happiness where you argue that happiness is not one thing, but rather a multiplicity of things that are different to sets of people. In the body paragraphs we can add all the different ways happiness means to each person. We can include all the contrasting views of happiness presented here by S, me, Baden, Unenlightened, and perhaps Amity. In the conclusion we can argue why happiness is important and what we can do to make people happy.

What do you think?

I foresee a few problems. We still haven't decided on who's doing the OP. How are we going to include the different views of happiness presented here without copying and pasting different writing styles into the OP. And lastly, what arguments are we going to include in our thesis on happiness?

Some good thoughts regarding structure. Intro, main body, conclusion. But it sounds a bit like we are producing an essay for academic purposes. Perhaps that is what is required, but it's not what I was thinking of as an exploratory discussion. I need to think more about this. There would be no foregone conclusion. That might come at the end of the process.

I think the strength of an exploratory discussion which starts off with the few personal statements or definitions is that there is an immediate, closer, possibly more meaningful engagement. The weakness might be that it gets too personal with knee-jerk, careless responses.

We can perhaps try to unpack each view and discover how they match the main thoughts or influences in philosophy. Or even the psychological approach to 'Happiness' ? Wherever it leads...but perhaps not too far or we might end up in a field of barley.

I am enjoying this conversation - it is constructive and collaborative. Perhaps that is how the OP can be created. By the few not the one.

The outstanding problem for me would be who starts the thread.
Because that is usually the person who leads and maintains the conversation. I've already voiced my reservations about taking that role.

However, we could get creative with that too...
It could be one name but help might be offered by someone more experienced. Either during the discussion or via PM.

How does that sound?
To my ears it sounds like a severe case of overthinking. One thing I am good at it. Unfortunately it can lead to paralysis of action. Yeah, I should put Elvis on.... :cool: :starstruck:

Now that made me happy. Reading something beautifully expressed and creatively philosophical that made me think, nod a little in the right way, and is clearly from a position of life experience. No references to a particular philosopher, book or encyclopedia but a distillation of many. Probably. — Amity

I realise that I haven't offered up a definition of Happiness. Possibly because as a concept it is confusing and complex; difficult to pin down. A definition leaves out the sense of what happiness is.

Above, I responded to Baden's definition by saying it made me happy. This kind of happiness is temporary. It's a gladdening of the heart, as opposed to a constipation of the bowels.

However, there is a deeper, permanent kind of Happiness within. A kind of mental knowledge based on experience which might be termed Acceptance. It does not matter if I am happy or unhappy; pain free or suffering.
It is what it is. I think someone once said...

I can't distil my thoughts into one beautiful sentence but I am happy someone else can.

When did I first hear and use the word 'Happy' ? Or introduced to the concept as opposed to feeling it ?
What comes to mind is singing 'Happy Birthday'. But was I happy. I can't remember. It would probably be dependent on stuff and getting stuffed. Gifts, cake and candles; taking a deep breath and blowing them all out in one puff to make a secret wish...what for ? Happiness ? Nah. Too nebulous...

I'd like to see a discussion about happiness that deals with two main approaches, namely materialism vs meaning, with participants arguing which is better or is more likely to lead to happiness.

American culture, as well as many other cultures, seems to favor materialistic pursuits over more meaningful goals. Developing a sustainable way of life and society would be a meaningful goal, for instance, however this pursuit isn't profit driven and may not lead to material wealth. On the other hand, it would certainly be grand, to travel the world without a care, as though one walked on thin air.

He/she/it — Sir2u

Wait. How dare you? My pronouns are ze/zir.

Of course you know why that is, don't you ?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary

Dictionaries or encyclopedias are useful as a first point for clarification. Often you find more meanings than you first thought. A definition which mirrors your intended meaning in a discussion is a great way to lessen any misunderstandings.

What is wonderful about our thinking and language is that it can change. It is not static.
New words like 'meme' or - Daniel Dennett's 'deepity'.

And sometimes that is what philosophy is too good at. With some making up their own words for same meaning. It can be a bit of a pain in the neck... — Amity

Quadolotrib. In other words, I agree with that last paragraph.

Quadolotrib. In other words, I agree with that last paragraph. — S

Primodacro :sparkle:

By the few not the one. — Amity

Ah, like Labour's slogan, but nowhere as catchy.

I am enjoying this conversation - it is constructive and collaborative. — Amity

Damn it. I'll have to up my game.

It is what it is. — Amity

:100:

Wait. How dare you? — S

I would not like to get called out (again) for assuming something I cannot prove, so I figured that if you don't fit into one or more of those three I could always just call you "anything else present".

My pronouns are ze/zir. — S

Is that the equivalent of I/me, him/her or just some more bullshit?

I'd like to see a discussion about happiness that deals with two main approaches, namely materialism vs meaning, with participants arguing which is better or is more likely to lead to happiness. — praxis

That is closer to my original idea about what makes people happy than trying to find better ways to explain what exactly happiness is. We know already, thanks to "S", the definition of happiness so lets look at the good and bad of making people happy.

Example:
Is it correct(moral) to give a 16 year old a shotgun for his/her birthday if it makes her/him happy?

I'd like to see a discussion about happiness that deals with two main approaches, namely materialism vs meaning, with participants arguing which is better or is more likely to lead to happiness.
— praxis

That is closer to my original idea about what makes people happy than trying to find better ways to explain what exactly happiness is. We know already, thanks to "S", the definition of happiness so lets look at the good and bad of making people happy.

Example:
Is it correct(moral) to give a 16 year old a shotgun for his/her birthday if it makes her/him happy? — Sir2u

Either way, you will still need to define what you mean by being or doing 'happy' or 'Happiness'.
I like the specific focus of your suggested discussion. Specifics, like that, could arise or spin off from unpacking the general definition of Baden:

Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action.

The definitions were only to be there as a starter.
What do you think ?

Related to the ethical and meaningful aspect of Happiness. The notion of eudaemonia - flourishing and wellbeing.

( Sorry I've lost the reference/source - there are probably better ones elsewhere )

Aristotle

At his Lyceum in Athens, Aristotle developed a model for the maximisation of happiness that could be implemented by individuals and whole societies, and is still relevant today. It became known as ‘peripatetic philosophy’ because Aristotle conducted philosophical debates while strolling in company with his interlocutors.

The fundamental tenet of peripatetic philosophy is this: the goal of life is to maximise happiness by living virtuously, fulfilling your own potential as a human, and engaging with others – family, friends and fellow citizens – in mutually beneficial activities.

But did Aristotle ever give a definition of Eudaemonia ?

A promising topic imo. — Baden

I never did ask why you thought Happiness a promising topic.
I am beginning to think otherwise.
After all, isn't it enough that we have an idea of what it means ?
What would motivate an enquiry ?
It's all been said before. Where would we find the originality seemingly required by the guidelines ?

Having second thoughts.

Well, the originality required is just that you don't repeat a topic that's already active. And there are none active on this topic. In fact, I have yet to see a particularly impressive OP on happiness.

(Except maybe this https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1568/discarding-the-ego-as-a-way-to-happiness from two years ago, which was promising but only led to a short discussion).

This may be because we think what it is is all too obvious, see @S, or it may be that the concept has been hijacked and degraded by the bulldozer of (post)modern culture to the extent that it has become indistinguishable to us from pleasure, see @Sir2u. Or both. Or I may be deluded.

Well, the originality required is just that you don't repeat a topic that's already active. And there are none active on this topic. In fact, I have yet to see a particularly impressive OP on happiness. — Baden

Not creating a similar ongoing discussion would seem to be common sense. Who would do that ?
How many times has it happened that it couldn't be adequately dealt with - without any need for the phrase 'original topic' in the guideline. If need be, why not say exactly what you said above:
So rather than:
d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active.
You have the clearer:
d) Don't repeat a topic that's already active.

What would you consider to be 'a particularly impressive OP on Happiness ?

You see, the problem I have with this is:
If I had acted naturally in a more spontaneous manner rather than going through a lot of angst about structure and quality of OP, then I might have learned something a lot quicker and felt more motivated.
It would have been a real exploration, an adventure for an enquiring spirit.

Strolling in company, being peripatetic or chewing the fat - engaging with others - what could be more natural as a way to fulfil potential, process wellbeingness. Perhaps not impressive but who am I trying to please or make happy anyway ? The creation of a quality discussion is an ideal but not always practical.
Sometimes you just got to take a first step...and see where the walk/talk leads.

I feel like you're arguing more with yourself than me here. I'm not trying to prevent anyone starting this discussion. But every discussion is subject to moderation and discussions that show more effort are more likely to make the cut. Originality will help with that, but to be fair most philosophical topics have been covered here somewhere, so the scope for that may be limited.

peripatetic — Amity

Fancy-shmancy. :wink:

peripatetic
— Amity

Fancy-shmancy. :wink: — S

Shwok-toc :razz:

Fancy-shmancy. :wink: — S

Could you please give us a workable definition of "shmancy", I cannot find it anywhere. And I know that you really like to provide people with the definition of words that are not in common use. Where can I find that dictionary you use?

Either way, you will still need to define what you mean by being or doing 'happy' or 'Happiness'.
I like the specific focus of your suggested discussion. Specifics, like that, could arise or spin off from unpacking the general definition of Baden:The definitions were only to be there as a starter.
What do you think ? — Amity

While Baden's definition is sort of fitting for some discussion, it is rather first person. It is about how one becomes happy, not how one makes others happy.

Now that we have ideas on what happiness is we can start brainstorming on how to make others happy:
Sell them a product; Help someone in need; Complementing them; Offering your friendship: Hosting a party: These are just some examples of making people happy, for what it's worth.

Some good thoughts regarding structure. Intro, main body, conclusion. But it sounds a bit like we are producing an essay for academic purposes. Perhaps that is what is required, but it's not what I was thinking of as an exploratory discussion. I need to think more about this. There would be no foregone conclusion. That might come at the end of the process. — Amity

We can have our cake and eat it too! It can be partly exploratory, and partly a thesis. I mean we can make conclusions on what we know about happiness, and leave some wiggle room for some exploratory content, for example, the part of happiness that we are not sure about.

Given the interest in the ethical and meaningful aspects of Happiness, together with the posters' definitions, here are a few thoughts about a thesis or statement.

You can't make people happy.
It is unhappiness that motivates philosophers.
You must Know Thyself before prescribing happiness for others.
A definition of happiness is not necessary to know what it is.
Happiness is not good for you.
Happiness, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Happiness is a habit and can be learned.
Happiness can't buy you Love.

At this rate, we won't need to start a formal discussion in that other place !